> And the really, really strange thing about it is that
> the first amendment is nowise as clear and straightforward
> a protection of the things it is now seen as protecting
> as the second is of its.

Are we still talking about writing LISP compilers in LISP, versus writing
C compilers in C?

Your point seems to be that the Right to Bear Arms (as in your
interpretation) enables us to defend the Bill of Rights, while the Freedom
of Speech and the Press does not.

In a (very) hypothetical "Red Dawn" world, that might be true. But in the
last 200+ years of American History, it has been free speech, and the
courts, that have protected the Bill of Rights internally, not our
militias.

Of course, the evidence that we can't have is all of the coups that would
have been attempted had not the villains been dissuaded by the fact of
American gun ownership.

Frankly, I think anyone with a shot at a successful coup would do so
through demagoguery, rather than stupidly trying to confiscate everyone's
guns. First, you spin the media and tell us all there's some kind of Red
Menace. Then you get the gun-owning patriots to form community protection
militias. You could have them corral your opponents much more easily than
if you had only the Army at your disposal.

No despot can oppress a country by themselves; they need a
significant-enough power base among the people. I think a strong,
independent media, and a well-educated public, will do more to protect our
rights than mass gun ownership.